关于孤独心理干预的报告中缺少了什么(如果有的话)?TIDieR分析。

Johanna C. Badcock , Julie Christiansen , Anna C. Badcock , Mathias Lasgaard
{"title":"关于孤独心理干预的报告中缺少了什么(如果有的话)?TIDieR分析。","authors":"Johanna C. Badcock ,&nbsp;Julie Christiansen ,&nbsp;Anna C. Badcock ,&nbsp;Mathias Lasgaard","doi":"10.1016/j.crbeha.2023.100136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Current research suggests that individual differences in the experience of loneliness should be reflected in personalized approaches to treatment. Psychological interventions are effective in reducing loneliness and complete reporting of these approaches in treatment studies is recommended to facilitate their implementation in clinical practice. Here, an adapted TIDieR (<em>t</em>emplate for <em>i</em>ntervention <em>d</em>escription and <em>r</em>eplication) checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting of effective psychological interventions for loneliness, identified in systematic reviews, including adaptations to individual needs and circumstances. Thirteen articles were evaluated, 69% were randomised controlled trials. None thoroughly reported <em>all</em> details of the intervention. The results indicate that reporting of psychological interventions for loneliness is inadequate. Poor reporting of how interventions were tailored or modified for particular client's needs was noted (complete in only 23.1% and 7.7% of studies, respectively), making it difficult for clinicians to know how best to adapt treatment to individual differences in loneliness. Other essential treatment information is also often missing, such as the materials and procedures used, limiting translation of evidence into clinical practice and reproducibility in future research. Greater attention is needed to improve intervention reporting, and increased use of the TIDieR checklist may assist.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72746,"journal":{"name":"Current research in behavioral sciences","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What (if anything) is missing in reports of psychological interventions for loneliness? A TIDieR analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Johanna C. Badcock ,&nbsp;Julie Christiansen ,&nbsp;Anna C. Badcock ,&nbsp;Mathias Lasgaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.crbeha.2023.100136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Current research suggests that individual differences in the experience of loneliness should be reflected in personalized approaches to treatment. Psychological interventions are effective in reducing loneliness and complete reporting of these approaches in treatment studies is recommended to facilitate their implementation in clinical practice. Here, an adapted TIDieR (<em>t</em>emplate for <em>i</em>ntervention <em>d</em>escription and <em>r</em>eplication) checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting of effective psychological interventions for loneliness, identified in systematic reviews, including adaptations to individual needs and circumstances. Thirteen articles were evaluated, 69% were randomised controlled trials. None thoroughly reported <em>all</em> details of the intervention. The results indicate that reporting of psychological interventions for loneliness is inadequate. Poor reporting of how interventions were tailored or modified for particular client's needs was noted (complete in only 23.1% and 7.7% of studies, respectively), making it difficult for clinicians to know how best to adapt treatment to individual differences in loneliness. Other essential treatment information is also often missing, such as the materials and procedures used, limiting translation of evidence into clinical practice and reproducibility in future research. Greater attention is needed to improve intervention reporting, and increased use of the TIDieR checklist may assist.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current research in behavioral sciences\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100136\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current research in behavioral sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666518223000402\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current research in behavioral sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666518223000402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前的研究表明,孤独感的个体差异应该反映在个性化的治疗方法中。心理干预在减少孤独感方面是有效的,建议在治疗研究中对这些方法进行完整的报告,以促进其在临床实践中的实施。本研究采用了一个经过调整的TIDieR(干预描述和复制模板)检查表,用于评估在系统综述中确定的有效孤独感心理干预报告的质量,包括对个人需求和环境的适应。13篇文章被评估,69%为随机对照试验。没有人彻底报道干预的所有细节。结果表明,孤独感的心理干预报告不足。报告指出,干预措施是如何针对特定客户的需求量身定制或修改的(分别只有23.1%和7.7%的研究完成),这使得临床医生很难知道如何最好地调整治疗以适应孤独感的个体差异。其他重要的治疗信息也经常缺失,例如使用的材料和程序,限制了证据转化为临床实践和未来研究的可重复性。需要更多地关注改善干预报告,并增加TIDieR检查表的使用可能会有所帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What (if anything) is missing in reports of psychological interventions for loneliness? A TIDieR analysis.

Current research suggests that individual differences in the experience of loneliness should be reflected in personalized approaches to treatment. Psychological interventions are effective in reducing loneliness and complete reporting of these approaches in treatment studies is recommended to facilitate their implementation in clinical practice. Here, an adapted TIDieR (template for intervention description and replication) checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting of effective psychological interventions for loneliness, identified in systematic reviews, including adaptations to individual needs and circumstances. Thirteen articles were evaluated, 69% were randomised controlled trials. None thoroughly reported all details of the intervention. The results indicate that reporting of psychological interventions for loneliness is inadequate. Poor reporting of how interventions were tailored or modified for particular client's needs was noted (complete in only 23.1% and 7.7% of studies, respectively), making it difficult for clinicians to know how best to adapt treatment to individual differences in loneliness. Other essential treatment information is also often missing, such as the materials and procedures used, limiting translation of evidence into clinical practice and reproducibility in future research. Greater attention is needed to improve intervention reporting, and increased use of the TIDieR checklist may assist.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current research in behavioral sciences
Current research in behavioral sciences Behavioral Neuroscience
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
40 days
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents The causal role of numerical and non-numerical order processing abilities in the early development of mathematics skills: Evidence from an intervention study Discrete memories of a continuous world: A working memory perspective on event segmentation Relationships between physical activity and loneliness: A systematic review of intervention studies Do narcissists possess a sense of purpose? Purpose-in-life and narcissism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1